Ethics Newsline®

John Naisbitt, whose numerous books have sold more than 14 million copies worldwide, is the author of Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. The recipient of twelve honorary degrees, Naisbitt is a former executive with IBM and Eastman Kodak and served presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Rushworth Kidder spoke with him by telephone November 1 at his home in Vienna, Austria.

Kidder: In the wake of September 11, what benefits do you think might flow to this country and the world over the next ten years?

Naisbitt: We have a great opportunity to reevaluate priorities and recalibrate global relationships. It’s really quite extraordinary, the international cooperation that flowed from this [attack]. It’s been a long time since Russia and China and the United States were in a coalition to defeat a common enemy. In fact, the last time was in 1945, in the battle against Japan.

I think there’s not only symbolism there, but a once-in-a-long-time opportunity to recalibrate some of the relationships. And the people who see this best are those who are very clear about the opportunities: [U.S. President George] Bush, [Prime Minister Tony] Blair [of Great Britain], [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, and [Chinese President] Jiang [Zemin]. Bush [has] really found a mission. He’s found something that he’s really interested in, and it’s very appropriate, and we all know that it’s changed his life. Blair has been a tiger, as a kind of foreign secretary for the United States going all over the world. The most interesting one, for me, is President Putin, who really sees so clearly the possibility of having Russia anchored in the West, which Russia has been trying to do for more than a thousand years. And then Jiang Zemin has come in from the cold, and wants to be President Bush’s new best friend.

These are extraordinary recalibrations. I think the possible long-term change in the geopolitics of the world could be the most important thing coming out of all this. And all of this, of course, is happening appropriately in this great era of globalization, where we all have a stake in [global] stability because of our investments and our trade. It’s all recalibrated, it’s all rearranged. And that can be built on, or we can screw it up. But the context of globalization and economic interdependency is a nurturing context for some rearrangements that really help stabilize the world.

Kidder: What’s the impact of these rearrangements, do you think, on other partners we have been working with — Saudi Arabia, Israel, and so forth?

Naisbitt: The most problematical, it seems to me, is Saudi Arabia. You know: They pretend to help us, and we pretend to be their friend. We know that all is not transparent. Certainly China and Russia have more at stake than the other countries, because they’re really important players in the world economy. And global economic stability is more important to them than to the others.

Kidder: You’ve called the current period in history “the time of parenthesis.” Do these changes signal the closing of the parentheses, with something else emerging?

Naisbitt: I’m talking about a world between eras, but it’s between eras in lots of ways. What’s really been underscored in the response to September 11 has been a new kind of war. We’re between eras in that regard. We have the old way of doing war, and we have the new way of doing war. We haven’t quite left the old way, but we’re not all doing the new way, either. I think we’ve probably crossed 50 percent [toward the new way of doing war], whereas in globalization we’re maybe 25 percent to the full realization. But even in wars, the world is between eras. [China and Russia] are eager to participate in the common enemy syndrome for their own interests. This is so manifestly in their best interests that it could really start changing the global politics.

Kidder: We’ve been talking so far about broad global geopolitical issues. You’re also a very astute observer of smaller, more local effects, as in your much-quoted concept of “high tech/high touch.” Is there a community side to the benefits following September 11?

Naisbitt: When I heard [people saying that] “Everything’s changed”[after September 11], I sort of nodded. Then I started to think about it, and I said, “Oh, that’s not true.” Everything hasn’t changed. It’s very important, it seems to me, to see what’s constant, and to ask, “What’s not going to change?” Constancy is the norm — even now, even in times of great change. What we’ve learned about America in these last couple of months is that not much has changed. That’s the great reassuring thing, our resiliency. We were kind of adrift. But this really coalesced [us], really brought things back together. All of the volunteerism, which [Alexis] de Tocqueville noted is one of the great pillars of this country, all of that just came back — all the people lining up to give blood, the valor of firemen, the basic decency of the people in this country. That hasn’t changed.

Kidder: What do you see as the downside to the September 11 attacks?

Naisbitt: This is the question I’m not going to answer. I refuse to put my intelligence and energy into a lot of negative stuff that I would have to invent. There are too many people doing that. I’m trying to see what can we shape out of this. What can we make better? I’m not going to spend any energy trying to string out some scenario about how terrible things could get.

Kidder: Well, tell me more about the upside, then. Education?

Naisbitt: Well, that’s one of the things I’m afraid is not going to change very much! I don’t think my campaign for a poet in every classroom as well as a computer is going to catch on everywhere. But it doesn’t mean that a lot of people aren’t doing a very good job, which they are. Lots of our kids are getting a really good education, but lots are not. That’s a worry. And technology is not going to bail us out of that.

Kidder: Are Americans awakening to the need to be more global and less insular in educational practices?

Naisbitt: I think in our psyche it’s going to change. We absolutely cannot be isolationist and inward-thinking.

Kidder: What are you seeing in the realm of global business and globalization?

Naisbitt: The globalization continues, and it will continue — it’s so manifestly in the world’s interests. [Despite] all the anti-globalists who speak in the name of the poor, we’ve had hundreds of millions of people come out of poverty in the last several decades, especially in China. That’s largely a function of the globalization of our economies, although nobody knows how it works — that’s why we have to leave it alone. The “new economy,” I think, is a media myth. The Internet is a new platform for buying and selling, but buying and selling is what it’s all about. The question is, Is this new platform going to make all of that more efficient? The short answer is yes. But it’s pretty primitive [compared to] what it’s going to be. Yes, the Internet is going to help business a lot, because it’s connecting people. But [the Internet] is not a technological phenomenon, it’s a social phenomenon. It’s going to have, among other things, a very globalizing impact. It puts people in better touch with each other, but it also puts people in touch with people they otherwise would never be in touch with. That’s the important sense of it, I think, and that’s going to continue apace.

Kidder: What two or three things would you steer people toward as indicators to tell whether these benefits from September 11 are being realized?

Naisbitt: We need to watch the global economy. I think it’s going to right itself sooner than most people think. I think it’s entirely possible that, in the United States, the fourth quarter can be on the positive side, even if barely, thereby technically escaping a recession. It’s surprising how little the economy is down. I think global economic activity is a pretty good index as to how the world is stabilizing, how the world is handling opportunities and problems.

Also, I think what’s going on in the arts is pretty important to follow. I expect an explosion of creativity in the arts and literature. I think that’s a good index of people functioning. [Historically,] when times were really bad, there was not much creativity, not much innovation — the Dark Ages, for example. I wrote about it in Megatrends 2000, which was published in 1990. It’s been happening, and the question is, Will that slow down?

[Finally,] globalization. The events of September 11 stopped the anti-globalization movement in its tracks. It’s too easy to associate [anti-globalization protests] with the activities of the terrorists. [The protesters are] backing off. Some small percentage is doing antiwar [protests] or “let’s have peace” — but a very small percentage.